Kelly Simpson

C.N.B. was sentenced after being found guilty of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault against his minor daughter.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of trust, prolonged and repeated abuse, use of weapons, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors were limited due to C.N.B.'s lack of full remorse.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of six years imprisonment.

Ancillary orders, including DNA, weapons prohibition, non-communication, and Sex Offender Registry registration, were also issued.

The accused, C.N.B., was charged with 12 counts of assault, assault with a weapon, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault against his minor daughter, V.N. C.N.B. pleaded guilty to a portion of one assault count but denied all other allegations.

The trial focused on credibility, particularly of the child complainant, V.N., and the accused.

The court applied principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found V.N. and her mother, P.C., to be credible and reliable witnesses, despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused and his son, C.N., were found not credible.

The court found the accused guilty on all twelve counts, noting that some counts might be subject to the rule against multiple convictions at sentencing.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn a criminal trial to pursue a third-party records application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code, related to historical sexual assault allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence had not provided sufficient case-specific evidence to establish the likely relevance of the records, beyond mere speculation, as required by s. 278.3(4).

The judge emphasized the high privacy expectations of complainants and the public interest in trial efficiency, balancing these against the accused's right to full answer and defence.

The accused, Royburn Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violence, the accused's position of trust as the victim's former partner and father of her children, and the victim's pregnancy at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of a criminal record, his guilty plea, consistent financial support for his children, the victim's expressed forgiveness, and his compliance with judicial interim release conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and noting the importance of conditional sentences in addressing the over-incarceration of Black offenders.

The appellant appealed his sentence of ten years and two months imposed for arson causing bodily harm and arson causing property damage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit, finding that even if the trial judge erred in referring to an aggravating factor, it had no impact on the global sentence.

The court confirmed that consecutive sentences were appropriately imposed as the offences involved different elements.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and any victim fine surcharge was set aside.

The accused R.G., S.G., and V.G. were charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats to cause death arising from incidents during R.G.'s three-month arranged marriage.

The court conducted a judge-alone trial, admitting similar fact evidence.

R.G. was found guilty of four sexual assault counts and one assault count, but acquitted on other sexual assault, assault, and threat charges.

S.G. was found guilty of one assault and one threat.

V.G. was found guilty of one threat.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, emphasizing the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

J.M. was convicted of five counts of sexual assault and sexual interference against two minor complainants, K.C.1 and K.C.2, who are his nieces.

The offences occurred over several years, involving a breach of familial trust.

The court considered aggravating factors such as multiple victims, breach of trust, grooming, and significant emotional impact on victims, alongside mitigating factors including low risk of re-offending, no prior sexual offence record, stable employment, and strong family support for his autistic daughter.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a reformatory sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of three and a half years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders, including a ten-year prohibition under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's unique circumstances.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, choking, and pointing a firearm, arising from an alleged domestic incident with his common-law spouse.

The complainant reported the incident over a year later, amidst a contentious custody dispute.

The trial judge found significant issues with the complainant's credibility, including inconsistencies in her testimony, a threatening email sent to the accused's brother, and the timing of her disclosure.

Finding the corroborative evidence insufficient to overcome these credibility concerns, the court acquitted the accused on all counts due to reasonable doubt.